In the past, provision has been made for confining liquids inadverently spilled from storage vessels containing them, and for retaining liquids generally, by a variety of means including earthen dikes, concrete retaining walls, and by similar structures. While these methods have some advantages, they are offset by a number of equal or greater disadvantages. For example, while earthen dikes are inexpensively and quickly built about liquid storage containers, or formed into a reservoir structures capable of containing liquids, they are permeable to penetration by liquids, and therefore, of only temporary value. In addition, when the earth forming them becomes contaminated by such penetration, it creates a severe disposal problem. In addition, earthen dikes are readily broken down by travel over them, by impact from vehicles, or otherwise. Furthermore, due to dirt's inherent angle of repose, earthen dikes require a considerable amount of space to erect.
Concrete is superior to earthen dikes in that it may readily be formed into liquid impermeable walls. On the other hand, concrete walls require extensive, and expensive, forming operations, including the placement of reinforcing steel bars. Also, concrete basin walls and dikes often develop cracks which allow the contained liquids to escape from them. A still further disadvantage with both earthen dikes and concrete containing walls is that neither is portable and, therefore, they are useful at only one location.